I remember when Starlog Magazine (Not to mention the plethora of come and go in the night knock off magazines) and Entertainment Tonight were the only avenues of being spoiled on a movie. I lived in a small Kansas town so the only big interaction with other Trek fans I had was through fan networks-pen pals. Things have certainly sped up in fandom!

I guess because growing up in that way I've never felt an entitlement to know every single scrap of info on a movie or a tv show months and months in advance. Like a lot of other people have said, I enjoy the excitement, the debates, the wondering. As a Trek fan it's been far too long since we've had anything really cool to be excited about. I think the super secrecy is ok. It certainly gives me something to talk about at 4 in the morning with all of you.
Hey, and if you're the type that has to know the running length of a movie a year in advance as well as a blow by blow breakdown of every scene before the thing comes out, well I guess that's just fine too. The important thing is that we're all fans, exercising our love of Star Trek in our own unique ways.
I have every faith that no matter what happens on screen we'll all be back here either praising, bemoaning, or lambasting what we saw and how we felt when we saw it all.
I know I will!

If Abrams had done TWOK, it would've been "Star Trek II: The Wrath of --".

Honestly, the secrecy is weird, but I guess that's J.J.' way.

Still, how can knowledge of who the villain is spoil the movie? Is who he is that big of a reveal?

There can be diminishing returns on carrying the secret too far, too. Frankly, if it comes out it's Khan or Mitchell, I think the first reaction of most folks (even those positive towards the movie) is going to be, "You waited this long to tell us that?"

Heck, I'll be one of the first in line to see it around here even if the Cumberbatch is playing Harry Mudd.

Click to expand...

This, combined with the comment someone else made about Nemesis (regarding how the general audiences stayed away because the Trekkies/Trekkers hated it and were vocal about it), is the only thing that worries me.

And I'm still bothered by Abrams waiting 4 frakking years to bring out the sequel when it should have been out in two and half). He captured lightning in a bottle with the first one - it got the fans and the "regular" people excited, and I'm just worried some of the excitement from the not-so-hardcore fans will have faded.

I enjoy speculation, but it needs some direction in order to be helpful hype for the movie's success.

Spoilers enhance the anticipation of a movie for me and are an integral part of the movie experience. Which Abrams is totally ruining.

Click to expand...

"Totally ruining"?

Really?

After all the spoilers that have been trickling out this week?

You really want the whole script online for 18 months so it can be turn apart and berated like "Insurrection" and "Nemesis"?

I accidentally stumbled across sections of "Insurrection" online where the Son'a were first described, and then the big reveal scene, where the audience realizes that the Son'a and Ba'ku were all one species. I thought it was perfectly fine, but then there was six months or so of doubt and anger from fans, so by the time the film came out it was all ho-hum. Ditto "Nemesis" - denials from Paramount that the leaked script was phony only made things worse when the film played out, line-by-line, exactly as leaked, but without the promised Andorian captain known to Janeway and Picard.

During the lead-up to STs III, IV and V, I helped put together a bimonthly Star Trek fan club newsletter and we ended up creating more and more elaborate "special sealed sections" so as not to ruin the films for members who hated spoilers, but we never pulled together enough to solve every mystery until after premiere night. But the latter films got more and more spoilery by the media. I was really angry with "Cinefantastique" magazine, which captioned an unseen pic of Kim Cattrall as "the traitor Valeris", even though their article itself didn't reveal too many surprises.

Why? The answers go beyond the scope of the study, but one possibility is perhaps the simplest one: that plot is overrated.

“Plots are just excuses for great writing. What the plot is is (almost) irrelevant. The pleasure is in the writing,” said Christenfeld, a UC San Diego professor of social psychology.

“Monet’s paintings aren’t really about water lilies,” he said.

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely yes.

One reason that you can appreciate the nuances of a movie on repeated viewings is that knowing where the narrative is going enables you to catch the significance of moments in the story in their complete context.

Do we really want to know that Norman's dressing up as Mother the first time we see Psycho, though? Probably not, but knowing doesn't stop people from enjoying the movie over, and over, and in many ways more on repeated viewings. Nor has it stopped generations of people from enjoying it despite knowing for many years before they see classic films that Mother is a corpse, Rosebud is a sled and Darth Vader is that kid's daddy.

Why? The answers go beyond the scope of the study, but one possibility is perhaps the simplest one: that plot is overrated.

“Plots are just excuses for great writing. What the plot is is (almost) irrelevant. The pleasure is in the writing,” said Christenfeld, a UC San Diego professor of social psychology.

“Monet’s paintings aren’t really about water lilies,” he said.

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely yes.

One reason that you can appreciate the nuances of a movie on repeated viewings is that knowing where the narrative is going enables you to catch the significance of moments in the story in their complete context.

Do we really want to know that Norman's dressing up as Mother the first time we see Psycho, though? Probably not, but knowing doesn't stop people from enjoying the movie over, and over, and in many ways more on repeated viewings. Nor has it stopped generations of people from enjoying it despite knowing for many years before they see classic films that Mother is a corpse, Rosebud is a sled and Darth Vader is that kid's daddy.

Click to expand...

While I don't dispute the findings of the study, I already know from having watched/read things after being exposed to spoilers vs. others not so "spoiled" that I would not be among those who prefer a "spoiled story". I totally agree that repeat viewings allow for the appreciation of various elements we don't necessarily appreciate the first time around but I also very much enjoy "the reveal" without the spoilers. Psycho works on many levels on repeat viewings but I am also very happy I first saw it without knowing "the reveal". The same applies to the Wrath of Khan (to keep it in the Trek world, not to suggest they are qualitatively equivalent). Obviously I knew Khan was the villain but I did not know Spock died at the end. I would have been very disappointed to know that before I saw it the first time.

The same applies to music, at least for me. I gain deeper appreciation of various compositions (classical, pop, jazz, etc.) upon repeat listening, but I delight in the freshness of the first listen.

So those who want huge spoilers, go for it. But let's not go overboard and say with a straight face that spoilers are "an integral part of the movie experience" as someone posted earlier. They are no such thing, at least not for the world at large.

Do we really want to know that Norman's dressing up as Mother the first time we see Psycho, though? Probably not, but knowing doesn't stop people from enjoying the movie over, and over, and in many ways more on repeated viewings. Nor has it stopped generations of people from enjoying it despite knowing for many years before they see classic films that Mother is a corpse, Rosebud is a sled and Darth Vader is that kid's daddy.

I totally agree that repeat viewings allow for the appreciation of various elements we don't necessarily appreciate the first time around but I also very much enjoy "the reveal" without the spoilers. Psycho works on many levels on repeat viewings but I am also very happy I first saw it without knowing "the reveal". The same applies to the Wrath of Khan (to keep it in the Trek world, not to suggest they are qualitatively equivalent). Obviously I knew Khan was the villain but I did not know Spock died at the end. I would have been very disappointed to know that before I saw it the first time.

Click to expand...

I totally agree.

Psycho and (to Dennis's other point) Kane are both cinematic masterpieces. The plot twists may have initially sold the tickets, but both films have since become better served as objects of intellectual study for hobbyists and academics. In that realm, the twists (or their direct dramatic impact on the viewer) are irrelevant.

And Khan, as you say, provides a great juxtaposition. In the end, it's a flawed film with a poignantly dramatic ending. Remove the initial impact of the ending, and all that's left is the flawed film.

Had the interwebz existed back then and the Kobayashi Maru ruse had failed to abate the rumor mill, I have no doubt that the (if the current fan base is any indicator) Trekkies would have out-lashed and completely ruined the experience.

"OMG, Spock is dead!" Would have become: "WTF? They killed Spock!" And I think it's easy to fill in the blanks as to what would've happened next. Suffice it to say, Khan would not be the Trek film to which all others are judged.

Luckily, Nicky & Harvey's trick worked. Now people just look back on the film fondly and enjoy it for its own sake. And it's since become a part of pop culture lore. People see it now fulling knowing about the "KHAAAAAAAAN!" or Spock's death, but it's part of the experience now. It's what i like to call the nostalgia goggles.

I like the Vader example better demonstrates this. Most fans have retroactively labeled Empire better than Star Wars. When you see docs and other interviews about this, everybody pretty unanimously attributes the whole "I am your father!" thing as the reason why. It was the ultimate "Oh my God!" moment.

But like the Khan thing, the initial awesomeness of people's reactions have rippled through the pop ether and become an entity of its own out of a need to fill some nostalgic void. People who where there the first time get to relive that feeling over and over again. Others can borrow those goggles and see the movie for the first time--the whole time knowing the out come--and still get the same rush as if a residual effect from catching the awesome ball.

And we can also ask what if it too had been spoiled by the interwebz? People would have been livid. There would be "What is this shit? This ain't no Star Wars!" Tweets abound.

In turn, people wouldn't look back at "I am your father!" with fondness, but with loathing hatred.

I think there's also a psychological effect at play too. Part of that initial "experience" has to do with when, where, and with whom you saw something for the first time. The friend who lent you the nostalgia goggles, for example, he may have spoiled the movie for you years ahead of time, but the experience of watching it with him for the first time more than made up for it.

There's also those emotional bonds we form with film, shows, and literature. We read a certain book or watch a show at a certain (right) time in our lives, and an element speaks to us on a personal level. And it becomes a security blanket--something to read/watch over and over again in order to recreate that feeling. Usually, though, those connections are formed out of the discovery of the story and its elements. A theme or idea just doesn't speak as strongly if you can't discover it on your own, which wouldn't happen if everything was spoiled.